Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 21, 2026.

Impact of the WHO FCTC over the first decade: a global evidence review prepared for the Impact Assessment Expert Group

Janet Chung-Hall, Lorraine Craig, Shannon Gravely and 2 more (opens in a new tab)

Tobacco Control · 2018 · Review

doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054389 (opens in a new tab)

Abstract

Objective. To present findings of a narrative review on the implementation and effectiveness of 17 Articles of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) during the Treaty’s first decade.

Data sources. Published reports on global FCTC implementation; searches of four databases through June 2016; hand-search of publications/online resources; tobacco control experts.

Study selection. WHO Convention Secretariat global progress reports (2010, 2012, 2014); 2015 WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic; studies of social, behavioural, health, economic and/or environmental impacts of FCTC policies.

Data extraction. Progress in the implementation of 17 FCTC Articles was categorised (higher/intermediate/lower) by consensus. 128 studies were independently selected by multiple authors in consultation with experts.

Data synthesis. Implementation was highest for smoke-free laws, health warnings and education campaigns, youth access laws, and reporting/information exchange, and lowest for measures to counter industry interference, regulate tobacco product contents, promote alternative livelihoods and protect health/environment. Price/tax increases, comprehensive smoking and marketing bans, health warnings, and cessation treatment are associated with decreased tobacco consumption/health risks and increased quitting. Mass media campaigns and youth access laws prevent smoking initiation, decrease prevalence and promote cessation. There were few studies on the effectiveness of policies in several domains, including measures to prevent industry interference and regulate tobacco product contents.

Conclusions. The FCTC has increased the implementation of measures across several policy domains, and these implementations have resulted in measurable impacts on tobacco consumption, prevalence and other outcomes. However, FCTC implementation must be accelerated, and Parties need to meet all their Treaty obligations and consider measures that exceed minimum requirements.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 21, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Introduction

Tobacco use is a leading cause of premature mortality and disease burden worldwide, resulting in approximately seven million preventable deaths annually. It is estimated that if current trends continue, tobacco will kill more than eight million people globally each year by 2030, with 80% of premature deaths occurring in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).

In response to the globalisation of the tobacco epidemic, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) was adopted by the World Health Assembly in 2003 and entered into force in 2005. The FCTC is one of the most widely adopted United Nations (UN) Treaties, with 181 Parties as of May 2018. It provides a comprehensive strategy for Parties to combat the tobacco epidemic and sets out a broad range of evidence-based measures to reduce tobacco demand (Articles 6–14) and supply (Articles 15–17).

The year 2015 marked the tenth anniversary of the FCTC coming into force, as well as the introduction of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a comprehensive set of health-related goals and targets for all countries to achieve by 2030. Over the last decade, the prevalence of tobacco use has declined in countries with policies that align with or exceed the minimum requirements of the FCTC and its guidelines. Nevertheless, recent evidence suggests that many countries are not on track to achieve the WHO target of a 30% relative reduction in adult tobacco use by 2025.

A decision by the FCTC Conference of the Parties (COP) at its sixth session in Moscow in October 2014 (FCTC/COP6(13)) established an independent group of seven experts to conduct an impact assessment to ‘examine the impact of the WHO FCTC on the implementation of tobacco control measures and on the effectiveness of its implementation’ over the first decade of the Convention. As of 2017, the WHO Convention Secretariat has published seven reports on global progress in FCTC implementation, and the WHO has published six reports that track the status of the global tobacco epidemic and policy interventions.

Existing literature reviews of the FCTC’s impact focus on the evaluation of key measures to reduce the demand for tobacco: monitoring tobacco use; smoke-free laws; tobacco cessation interventions; health warnings; tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship (TAPS) bans; and tobacco tax increases. A systematic overview by Hoffman and Tan identified 59 systematic reviews summarising over 1150 primary studies (up to May 2015) on the impact of FCTC policies on tobacco use, second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure and primary health outcomes. Evidence was strongest for the effectiveness of smoke-free and tobacco taxation policies, followed by mass media campaigns and health warnings on the harms of tobacco use, and affordable smoking cessation treatment interventions; limited for advertising restrictions; and unavailable for monitoring tobacco use. A recent review of 41 studies (up to June 2017) on the effect of key demand-reduction measures on perinatal and child health found that smoke-free legislation was consistently associated with positive child health outcomes, including lower rates of preterm birth, and hospital admissions for childhood asthma and respiratory tract infections, with stronger associations for comprehensive bans than partial bans.

It is estimated that nearly 22 million future premature smoking-attributable deaths were averted as a result of strong implementation of demand-reduction measures adopted by countries between 2007 and 2014. Consistent with this, Dubray et al found that overall, countries with higher levels of implementation on these key measures experienced greater decreases in current tobacco smoking between 2006 and 2009. Similar findings on the positive effects of these demand-reduction measures on reducing smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption during 2007–2014 were found in another study by Ngo et al. A recent study by Gravely et al found that increases in highest level implementations of the five key FCTC demand-reduction measures between 2007 and 2014 were significantly associated with a decrease in smoking prevalence between 2005 and 2015.

While there is a large evidence base for the effectiveness of these core demand-reduction measures, little is known about the impact of other FCTC policies, such as supply-reduction measures to reduce illicit tobacco trade, prohibit sales to and by minors and promote alternative livelihoods. Under decision FCTC/COP6(13), desk reviews of existing literature on the impact of the FCTC were mandated as a part of the work of the Expert Group (EG). In 2015–2016, the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC Project) conducted a global evidence review of the impact of the FCTC on the implementation of tobacco control legislation and the effectiveness of those implementations across a much broader set of FCTC policy domains. Further details on other literature reviews prepared for the EG as well as the methodology used by the EG to conduct the FCTC impact assessment are provided in this volume. In brief, the ITC global evidence review was prepared to inform the EG in deliberations at its first meeting (Geneva, August 2015). The global evidence review played a central role in the work of the EG by providing the context for the preparation of briefing materials on the status of FCTC implementation for the 12 country missions, and serving as a main evidence source for the EG’s report on their findings of the impact assessment to the COP at its seventh session (COP7; New Delhi, November 2016). The EG’s final report, ITC global evidence review and other relevant materials are available on the WHO Convention Secretariat website: http://www.who.int/fctc/cop/cop7/Documentation-Supplementary-information/en/.

This paper summarises the ITC global evidence review, which represents the most comprehensive overview and assessment of FCTC impact to date across the Treaty’s first decade. Given the limited time frame that was available (May–July 2015 for completion of literature review for EG’s first meeting on 10–11 August 2015; June 2016 for updates to correspond with the time of the EG’s submission of their final report of findings of the impact assessment to the COP on 29 June 2016), this review is not a systematic review of all available evidence on the implementation and effectiveness of policies called for under the 17 FCTC Articles. Rather, it is a narrative review that aims to provide a qualitative synthesis of evidence on whether the FCTC has increased and strengthened the implementation of tobacco control policies under the 17 Articles of the Convention and the effectiveness of those measures. A narrative review provides a qualitative summary of primary studies on a research question, covers a wide range of issues on a topic, and allows for the inclusion of a broad range of evidence sources that use different study designs and report diverse outcomes, and is thus well suited for the purpose of the current review.

Methods

This narrative review was conducted across 17 substantive Articles of the FCTC, where impact assessment was appropriate (table 1 provides a brief description of each Article, and further details are provided in online supplementary table S1). i The 2010, 2012 and 2014 global progress reports on FCTC implementation prepared by the WHO Convention Secretariat and the 2015 WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic served as the primary sources to assess global progress and key challenges in FCTC implementation. Relevant data from published studies and policy reports were also included. Based on an overall assessment of available sources (up to June 2016) on changes in the total number of countries/FCTC Parties who reported the implementation of Treaty provisions over time, the level of progress for each Article was categorised as higher (significant and rapid progress), intermediate (some progress but slower overall rate, with advancements often limited to partial implementation) or lower (some momentum to support the development of measures but slow progress).

Published studies and grey literature on the effectiveness of FCTC measures were identified from searches of four electronic databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus and Google Scholar. Independent searches were conducted by three authors (JC-H, SG, NS) and screened by all coauthors between May and July 2015. Searches were updated by the lead author (JC-H) in June 2016 and reviewed by the second author (LC). Tobacco control experts (online supplementary table S2) were also contacted to identify further sources. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were primary or secondary research on the social, behavioural, health economic and/or environmental impacts of FCTC tobacco control policies. Searches were conducted for the full time period available up to June 2016. Non-English-language studies and tobacco industry-funded research were excluded. A broad range of general and FCTC Article-specific search terms were used for all databases to capture as many publications on the effectiveness of FCTC measures as possible. Additional materials were identified by hand-searching selected peer-reviewed publications and grey literature, and scanning online resources created by leading tobacco control advocacy/research groups, such as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Framework Convention Alliance, University of California San Francisco Truth Tobacco Industry Documents and Tobacco Tactics.

A total of 128 studies, identified in consultation with a panel of tobacco control experts, were included in this review.

Impact of FCTC on tobacco control legislation

FCTC implementation reports submitted by Parties to the Convention Secretariat show progress in the implementation of tobacco control legislation since the Convention came into force in 2005. However, there is considerable variability in the overall rate and extent of progress in the implementation of tobacco control legislation across countries and policy domains, with limited progress in the implementation of strong policies in many LMICs. Figure 1 summarises overall progress in the implementation of measures for each of the 17 FCTC Articles.

The FCTC has contributed to significant and rapid progress in the implementation of the following:Comprehensive smoke-free laws for indoor workplaces, restaurants and bars (Article 8).Larger, pictorial health warnings on cigarette packages (Article 11).Mass media education campaigns on the health risks of tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke, and the benefits of quitting (Article 12).Bans on the sale of tobacco products to and by minors (Article 16).

Comprehensive smoke-free laws for indoor workplaces, restaurants and bars (Article 8).

Larger, pictorial health warnings on cigarette packages (Article 11).

Mass media education campaigns on the health risks of tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke, and the benefits of quitting (Article 12).

Bans on the sale of tobacco products to and by minors (Article 16).

Since the first reporting cycle in 2007, there has also been a steady increase in the number of Parties that have submitted FCTC implementation reports in accordance with Article 21.

The FCTC has contributed to some progress in the implementation of the following:Tobacco price and tax increases, simplified tax systems and tax measures that account for inflation (Article 6).Disclosure of information on the contents and emissions of tobacco products (Article 10).Comprehensive TAPS bans (Article 13).Cessation services (Article 14).Measures to counter illicit tobacco trade (Article 15).Programmes for tobacco-related research, surveillance and information exchange (Article 20).

Tobacco price and tax increases, simplified tax systems and tax measures that account for inflation (Article 6).

Disclosure of information on the contents and emissions of tobacco products (Article 10).

Comprehensive TAPS bans (Article 13).

Cessation services (Article 14).

Measures to counter illicit tobacco trade (Article 15).

Programmes for tobacco-related research, surveillance and information exchange (Article 20).

However, overall global progress in these policy domains has been slow and advancements have often been limited to partial implementation.

Finally, the FCTC has generated momentum, in a small number of countries, to support the development of measures to:Protect tobacco control policies from industry interference (Article 5.3).Regulate the contents and emissions of tobacco products (Article 9).Promote economically viable alternatives for tobacco farmers (Article 17).Address the health and environmental impacts related to the cultivation and manufacture of tobacco (Article 18).Allow for legislative action against the tobacco industry (Article 19).Facilitate international cooperation (Article 22).

Protect tobacco control policies from industry interference (Article 5.3).

Regulate the contents and emissions of tobacco products (Article 9).

Promote economically viable alternatives for tobacco farmers (Article 17).

Address the health and environmental impacts related to the cultivation and manufacture of tobacco (Article 18).

Allow for legislative action against the tobacco industry (Article 19).

Facilitate international cooperation (Article 22).

Ongoing challenges to the implementation of the FCTC

The FCTC has generally had a positive impact on tobacco control. Nevertheless, there are a number of ongoing challenges to the effective implementation of the Convention.

Tobacco industry interference

The tobacco industry has a long-standing history of using direct and indirect tactics to obstruct, delay or weaken the implementation of FCTC policies, including smoke-free laws, tobacco marketing bans, and price and tax measures. Although an increasing number of countries have taken steps to prevent tobacco industry interference (TII) with policymaking in recent years, no country has fully implemented measures to protect public health policy from TII at the best practice level as recommended under Article 5.3 to date. As a result, TII continues to be the largest barrier to FCTC implementation worldwide. The tobacco industry continues to use strategies that are in violation of Article 5.3 guidelines, including government partnerships, front groups and corporate social responsibility activities, as well as strategies that are not directly covered by Article 5.3 guidelines to interfere with policymaking. For example, the industry has used trade and investment agreements to challenge legislation for plain packaging in Australia and larger health warnings in Uruguay. The industry has also established ‘Better Regulation Agendas’ to promote their interests and block the implementation of evidence-based policies, such as the 2014 Tobacco Product Directive in the European Union and plain packaging in the UK.

It is encouraging, however, that such industry tactics have been unsuccessful. Notably, legal challenges to legislation for plain packaging in Australia and the UK, and 80% front and back pictorial warnings and single brand presentation in Uruguay, have all been dismissed by domestic and international courts/tribunals. These landmark rulings reinforce that governments have the right to implement FCTC measures for the protection of public health and are expected to set a strong precedent for the introduction of similar legislation in other countries.

Lack of guidelines and ineffective implementation of existing guidelines

In general, progress in FCTC implementation has been more rapid and comprehensive for Articles with existing guidelines and specified timelines for implementation of certain provisions. Formal guidelines have not yet been adopted to assist Parties to meet their Treaty obligations under Articles 9, 10, 15 and 17–22. Selective and incomplete implementation of existing guidelines allows the tobacco industry to take advantage of loopholes in existing legislation, thus weakening the policy impact. For example, few countries earmark tobacco tax revenues for health purposes; prohibit smoking in private workplaces, pubs and bars, and private motor vehicles; have health warnings covering more than 50% of the package; prohibit tobacco displays at point of sale; and mandate the recording of patients’ tobacco use in medical notes.

Insufficient capacity and lack of financial support

In many countries, there is limited capacity for tobacco control at the national level. For example, Parties have identified the lack of capacity for testing contents of tobacco products and national data collection as barriers to the implementation of Articles 9 and 21, respectively. As of 2014, only 5 of 130 reporting Parties have established training programmes and strategies that aim to strengthen tobacco control capacity, as called for under Article 20. In most countries, governments provide limited (if any) financial support for core FCTC measures, including cessation services and tobacco dependence treatment, alternative livelihood programmes, measures for the protection of the environment and health of tobacco workers, and tobacco-related research programmes.

Poor enforcement

In the vast majority of countries, there are weak enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with tobacco control policies. For example, many Parties continue to experience enforcement-related difficulties for smoke-free laws, TAPS bans and youth access laws.

Effectiveness of FCTC-compliant tobacco control measures

There is a growing body of research on the effectiveness of tobacco control measures that align with the FCTC and its existing guidelines. This narrative review included 128 studies on the effectiveness of FCTC measures up to June 2016 (online supplementary table S3). Overall, studies on the impact of price and tax increases (n=6), comprehensive smoke-free policies (n=17), health warnings (n=25), comprehensive TAPS bans (n=14) and cessation interventions (n=19) consistently found that these are among the most effective strategies to reduce tobacco consumption/prevalence and tobacco-related health risks, and encourage quitting. Studies conducted in high-income countries (HICs) also provide strong evidence that mass media campaigns (n=14) and well-enforced measures to restrict youth access to tobacco products (n=10) are effective for preventing smoking initiation, decreasing smoking prevalence and promoting cessation.

A small number of case studies provide evidence for the effectiveness of coordinated national strategies to combat illicit trade in the UK, Spain and Kenya (n=4); profitability of small-scale alternative crop programmes in China, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Bangladesh and Brazil (n=9); and reductions in green tobacco sickness among tobacco workers who used personal protective equipment in the USA, India and Malaysia, as well as those who were exposed to a public education campaign on the risks of tobacco harvesting in the USA (n=7). One study found that regular monitoring of tobacco use is associated with a decrease in smoking rates over time. Two reviews summarised the use of the FCTC and its guidelines in legislation and litigation, and showed an increase in the number of countries who have used the Treaty to support new tobacco control policies and to defend legislation against industry challenges.

No studies evaluating the impact of measures for prevention of industry interference, regulation of contents of tobacco products, and facilitation of information exchange and cooperation were identified.

Discussion

This narrative review is the first to synthesise global research evidence on the impact of the FCTC after its first 10 years. It is the broadest assessment to date of whether the implementation of tobacco control legislation across 17 substantive Articles could be attributed to the FCTC, and whether implementation of those policies was linked to subsequent changes in tobacco consumption, prevalence and other tobacco-related outcomes.

The findings of the review were integral to the work of the EG, as they provided background and context for the country missions, and evidence that informed the judgements of the EG in their report to COP7 on the outcome of the impact assessment and recommendations on how to strengthen FCTC impact. Leading tobacco control experts were engaged in the literature review process and made contributions to gathering and reviewing evidence on the effectiveness of the implementation of the Convention.

The FCTC impact assessment contributed to building the foundation for shifting the focus of the COP from increasing ratification and guideline development towards actions to encourage accelerated implementation of the FCTC, including the establishment of an implementation working group under a decision adopted at COP7 (FCTC/COP7(13)).

Overall, this review shows that tobacco control policies are effective when they are implemented according to the Treaty and its guidelines. However, the overall rate and extent of global progress in the implementation of the provisions of the Convention remain uneven across countries and policy domains. Among 17 FCTC Articles, the greatest progress has been achieved in the implementation of smoke-free laws, health warnings on tobacco packaging, antitobacco mass media campaigns, youth access laws and reporting/exchange of information. On the other hand, progress in all other policy domains has been slow, particularly for the implementation of measures to counter industry interference, regulate tobacco product contents, promote alternative livelihoods and protect the environment and health of tobacco workers.

Only a small number of reporting Parties have taken liability action against the tobacco industry over the last decade. It is encouraging to note that the FCTC Treaty text and guidelines have been explicitly cited by a growing number of countries to support new tobacco control measures. The FCTC has also been successfully used as a legal instrument to defend Parties against industry challenges to tobacco control measures, including plain packaging in Australia, and 80% pictorial warnings and single brand presentation in Uruguay.

Although the FCTC has played an important role in driving global progress in the implementation of tobacco control policies over the last decade, there are ongoing challenges to the effective implementation of the Treaty. First, in order to achieve the WHO global target of a 30% reduction in tobacco use by the year 2025, progress in many policy domains needs to be accelerated. Second, the tobacco industry continues to be the greatest threat to the implementation of the FCTC. In 2018, the WHO Convention Secretariat and the Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control (a WHO FCTC Knowledge Hub on Article 5.3) published reports that identified best practices for effective implementation of FCTC Article 5.3 and its guidelines at the country and global level. There is an urgent need for Parties to implement these measures to eliminate industry interference with policymaking. Finally, long-term sustainable solutions to strengthen capacity, financial support and resources, and enforcement are required to assist Parties to meet their Treaty obligations.

A growing body of research indicates that tobacco control measures that align with the FCTC and its guidelines are effective. This review found strong international evidence that price and tax increases, comprehensive smoke-free policies, pictorial health warnings, comprehensive TAPS bans and cessation interventions are among the most effective strategies to reduce tobacco consumption and tobacco-related health risks, and encourage quitting. We also found that mass media campaigns and well-enforced measures to restrict youth access to tobacco products are consistently associated with decreased smoking initiation and smoking prevalence, and increased cessation in HICs. These results are consistent with several recent studies based on global data and systematic reviews on the effect of FCTC policies on tobacco-related outcomes, including improved health, decreased smoking prevalence and consumption, decreased SHS exposure, and increased smoking cessation.

On the other hand, there are still significant research gaps on the impact of FCTC measures in several key policy domains. In the vast majority of countries, the development and implementation of measures to prevent industry interference, regulate tobacco product contents and disclosures, promote economically viable alternatives, protect the environment and health, encourage liability action against the industry, and promote cooperation are still in the early stages. It will be important for future research to evaluate the effectiveness of measures in these areas as they are adopted. Finally, there is a paucity of research that has examined the impact of the FCTC by gender and among disadvantaged groups.

This global review has several limitations. First, our summary of global progress in FCTC implementation is largely based on Parties’ self-reports that are not systematically evaluated for consistency with implemented laws, regulations or national strategies/action plans. Furthermore, FCTC implementation reports do not require Parties to submit information on their use of implementation guidelines. Second, we did not analyse whether progress in policy implementation and subsequent public health impact is directly due to the FCTC or other factors. It is likely that changes are generated by the FCTC in combination with other country-specific factors, such as political climate, strength of tobacco control advocacy community, policy compliance and enforcement, and pre-existing legislation prior to FCTC ratification. However, the relative impact of the FCTC will vary by country. For example, a recent analysis of daily smoking prevalence estimates in 195 countries from 1990 to 2015 found that a greater percentage achieved significant annualised rates of decline in smoking prevalence from 1990 to 2005 (before FCTC) than from 2005 and 2015 (after FCTC). Moreover, there are non-Parties to the FCTC that have implemented strong national tobacco control policies, such as comprehensive smoke-free laws, large graphic health warnings and high tobacco taxes in Argentina, and antitobacco mass media campaigns and accessible tobacco dependence treatment interventions in the USA. Third, given the time constraints for completion of the literature review, we did not conduct a systematic review of all empirical evidence on the effectiveness of FCTC measures. Our literature searches were restricted to four databases, published data and English-language sources. We consulted with seven tobacco control experts to identify any key sources missed by our searches; however, their expertise did not cover all 17 FCTC Articles included in this review. Future systematic reviews are needed to synthesise all available evidence on the impact of FCTC policies on tobacco prevalence and consumption, and other outcomes. Fourth, we did not assign quality ratings to sources on FCTC policy impact to prioritise the selection of sources for the current review. Finally, we did not use standardised criteria to categorise the level of progress in FCTC implementation for the 17 Articles included in this review. However, the overall pattern of our findings on global progress in the implementation of FCTC policies is comparable with the latest results of the WHO Convention Secretariat’s 2016 global progress report on FCTC implementation across 16 Articles, as well as the WHO 2017 report on the global implementation of core demand-reduction measures.

Conclusion

This narrative review summarises evidence on FCTC impact over its first 10 years. The FCTC has served as a powerful tool to initiate, support and advance national, regional and global tobacco control efforts. The effectiveness of core demand-reduction policies is well established, and emerging evidence suggests that strong implementation of these measures can lead to significant reductions in tobacco use. It is now time for Parties to build on achievements and to address gaps in policy implementation and research, especially in LMICs. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development recognises tobacco control as a critical component to achieve all 17 SDGs. In order to change the current trajectory of the global tobacco epidemic and meet the SDG targets, Parties need to accelerate the implementation of all FCTC provisions, in combination with systematic evaluation of policy effectiveness.

This narrative review synthesised evidence on the impact of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) across 17 substantive Articles over its first 10 years.

This narrative evidence review found that there has been an increase in the implementation of tobacco control legislation since the FCTC came into force, but progress varies across countries and policy domains.

The FCTC is a powerful legal instrument that can be used by countries to support new tobacco control measures and to defend against industry challenges to legislation.

There is strong international evidence that FCTC-compliant measures are effective.

Significant gaps exist for both the implementation and evaluation of measures to counter industry interference (Article 5.3), regulate tobacco product contents (Article 9), promote alternative livelihoods (Article 17), protect the environment and health of tobacco workers (Article 18), and promote cooperation (Article 22).

To achieve the Sustainable Development Goals to strengthen FCTC implementation and reduce premature mortality from non-communicable diseases, Parties need to fulfill their Treaty obligations, implement measures that go beyond the minimum provisions of the Convention and eliminate industry interference.

References 216

  1. 1.
    Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015 · 2016
    Corrected
  2. 2.
    Smoking prevalence and attributable disease burden in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015 · 2017
    Corrected
  3. 3.

    World Health Organization. WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2017. Monitoring tobacco use and prevention policies. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2017.

    Not in our library

  4. 4.

    Eriksen M, Mackay J, Schluger N, et al The tobacco atlas. 5th edn Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 2015.

    Not in our library

  5. 5.

    World Health Organization. WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2011. Warning about the dangers of tobacco. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2011.

    Not in our library

  6. 6.

    World Health Organization. WHO global report: mortality attributable to tobacco. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2012.

    Not in our library

  7. 7.
    Projections of Global Mortality and Burden of Disease from 2002 to 2030 · 2006
    No notice
  8. 8.

    World Health Organization. WHO framework convention on tobacco control. 2003 http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/42811/1/9241591013.pdf?ua=1

    Not in our library

  9. 9.

    World Health Organization. The WHO framework convention on tobacco control: an overview. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2015.

    Not in our library

  10. 10.

    Dubray J, Schwartz R, Chaiton M, et al The effect of MPOWER on smoking prevalence. Tob Control 2015;24:540–2.

    Not in our library10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051834 (opens in a new tab)

  11. 11.

    Puska P Framework convention on tobacco control: 10 years of the pioneering global health instrument. Eur J Public Health 2016;26:1

    Not in our library10.1093/eurpub/ckv178 (opens in a new tab)

  12. 12.

    Shang C, Huang J, Cheng KW, et al Global evidence on the association between POS advertising bans and youth smoking participation. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2016;13:306

    Not in our library10.3390/ijerph13030306 (opens in a new tab)

  13. 13.

    Frazer K, Callinan JE, McHugh J, et al Legislative smoking bans for reducing harms from secondhand smoke exposure, smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;2:CD005992

    Not in our library10.1002/14651858.cd005992.pub3 (opens in a new tab)

  14. 14.

    Bilano V, Gilmour S, Moffiet T, et al Global trends and projections for tobacco use, 1990-2025: an analysis of smoking indicators from the WHO comprehensive information systems for tobacco control. Lancet 2015;385:966–76.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60264-1 (opens in a new tab)

  15. 15.

    What will it take to create a tobacco-free world? Lancet 2015;385:915

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60512-8 (opens in a new tab)

  16. 16.

    Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Decision FCTC/COP6(13) Impact assessment of the WHO FCTC. 2014 http://apps.who.int/gb/fctc/PDF/cop6/FCTC_COP6(13)-en.pdf

    Not in our library

  17. 17.

    WHO Convention Secretariat. Reporting and exchange of information (decision FCTC/COP1(14)). Synthesis of reports on implementation of the WHO framework convention on tobacco control received from parties (before 27 February 2007). Geneva: WHO Convention Secretariat, 2007.

    Not in our library

  18. 18.

    WHO Convention Secretariat. Reports of the Parties received by the Convention Secretariat and progress made internationally in implementation of the Convention (Decision FCTC/COP1/(14)). 2008 http://www.who.int/fctc/reporting/summary_2008_document_cop_3_14.pdf?ua=1

    Not in our library

  19. 19.

    WHO Convention Secretariat. Summary report on global progress in implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Geneva: WHO Convention Secretariat, 2009.

    Not in our library

  20. 20.

    WHO Convention Secretariat. Global progress report on the implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Geneva: WHO Convention Secretariat, 2010.

    Not in our library

  21. 21.

    WHO Convention Secretariat. Global progress report on implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Geneva: WHO Convention Secretariat, 2012.

    Not in our library

  22. 22.

    WHO Convention Secretariat. Global progress report on implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Geneva: WHO Convention Secretariat, 2014.

    Not in our library

  23. 23.

    WHO Convention Secretariat. Global progress report on implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Geneva: WHO Convention Secretariat, 2016.

    Not in our library

  24. 24.

    World Health Organization. Surveillance and monitoring. 2017 http://www.who.int/tobacco/publications/surveillance/en/

    Not in our library

  25. 25.
    Overview of systematic reviews on the health-related effects of government tobacco control policies · 2015
    No notice
  26. 26.
    Effect of tobacco control policies on perinatal and child health: a systematic review and meta-analysis · 2017
    No notice
  27. 27.

    Levy DT, Yuan Z, Luo Y, et al Seven years of progress in tobacco control: an evaluation of the effect of nations meeting the highest level MPOWER measures between 2007 and 2014. Tob Control 2018;27:50–7.

    Not in our library10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053381 (opens in a new tab)

  28. 28.

    Ngo A, Cheng KW, Chaloupka FJ, et al The effect of MPOWER scores on cigarette smoking prevalence and consumption. Prev Med 2017;105S:S10–14.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.05.006 (opens in a new tab)

  29. 29.

    Gravely S, Giovino GA, Craig L, et al Implementation of key demand-reduction measures of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and change in smoking prevalence in 126 countries: an association study. Lancet Public Health 2017;2:e166–74.

    Not in our library10.1016/s2468-2667(17)30045-2 (opens in a new tab)

  30. 30.

    WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Impact assessment of the WHO FCTC (Decision FCTC/COP6(13)). Moscow: WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, 2014.

    Not in our library

  31. 31.

    Naslund JA, Aschbrenner KA, Araya R, et al Digital technology for treating and preventing mental disorders in low-income and middle-income countries: a narrative review of the literature. Lancet Psychiatry 2017;4:486–500.

    Not in our library10.1016/s2215-0366(17)30096-2 (opens in a new tab)

  32. 32.

    Collins JA, Fauser BC Balancing the strengths of systematic and narrative reviews. Hum Reprod Update 2005;11:103–4.

    Not in our library10.1093/humupd/dmh058 (opens in a new tab)

  33. 33.

    World Health Organization. WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2015: raising taxes on tobacco. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2015.

    Not in our library

  34. 34.

    Uang R, Hiilamo H, Glantz SA Accelerated adoption of smoke-free laws after ratification of the world health organization framework convention on tobacco control. Am J Public Health 2016;106:166–71.

    Not in our library10.2105/ajph.2015.302872 (opens in a new tab)

  35. 35.

    Canadian Cancer Society. Cigarette package health warnings: international status report. 4th edn Toronto: Canadian Cancer Society, 2014.

    Not in our library

  36. 36.

    Hiilamo H, Crosbie E, Glantz SA The evolution of health warning labels on cigarette packs: the role of precedents, and tobacco industry strategies to block diffusion. Tob Control 2014;23:e2

    Not in our library10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050541 (opens in a new tab)

  37. 37.

    World Health Organization. WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2013: enforcing bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2013.

    Not in our library

  38. 38.

    Hiilamo H, Glantz SA Implementation of effective cigarette health warning labels among low and middle income countries: state capacity, path-dependency and tobacco industry activity. Soc Sci Med 2015;124:241–5.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.11.054 (opens in a new tab)

  39. 39.

    World Health Organization. WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2009: implementing smoke-free environments. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2009.

    Not in our library

  40. 40.

    ERC Group. World cigarettes 1 and 2: the 2007 survey. 2007.

    Not in our library

  41. 41.

    Miguel-Baquilod M, Luz S, Quimbo A, et al The economics of tobacco and tobacco taxation in the Philippines. 2012 https://global.tobaccofreekids.org/assets/global/pdfs/en/Philippines_tobacco_taxes_report_en.pdf

    Not in our library

  42. 42.

    John R, Pasha HA, Pasha AG, et al The economics of tobacco and tobacco taxation in Pakistan. 2013 https://tobacconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/PakistanReport_May2014.pdf

    Not in our library

  43. 43.

    World Health Organization. WHO technical manual on tobacco tax administration. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2010.

    Not in our library

  44. 44.

    Dorotheo U, Ratanachena S, Ritthiphakdee B, et al ASEAN tobacco tax report card: regional comparisons and trends. 5th edn Bangkok, 2014.

    Not in our library

  45. 45.

    Department of Finance Canada. The road to balance: creating jobs and opportunities. Economic action plan 2014. 2014 http://www.budget.gc.ca/2014/docs/plan/pdf/budget2014-eng.pdf

    Not in our library

  46. 46.

    Government of New Zealand. Budget economic and fiscal update 2012. 2012 http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/befu2012

    Not in our library

  47. 47.

    Australian Government Department of Health. Taxation: the history of tobacco excise arrangements in Australia since 1901. 2014 http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/tobacco-tax

    Not in our library

  48. 48.

    Willemsen MC, Nagelhout GE Country differences and changes in focus of scientific tobacco control publications between 2000 and 2012 in Europe. Eur Addict Res 2016;22:52–8.

    Not in our library10.1159/000381674 (opens in a new tab)

  49. 49.

    Espino R, Assunta M, Kin F Status of tobacco farming in the ASEAN region. 2013.

    Not in our library

  50. 50.

    Ministry of Agrarian Development of Brazil. Tobacco growing, family farmers and diversification strategies in Brazil: current prospects and future potential for alternative crops. Technical document for the second section of the Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. 2007.

    Not in our library

  51. 51.

    WHO Convention Secretariat. FCTC implementation database: progress made in implementing Article 18. 2014 http://apps.who.int/fctc/implementation/database/article/article-18/indicators/5472/reports

    Not in our library

  52. 52.

    Muggli ME, Zheng A, Liberman J, et al Tracking the relevance of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in legislation and litigation through the online resource, Tobacco Control Laws. Tob Control 2014;23:457–60.

    Not in our library10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050854 (opens in a new tab)

  53. 53.

    Hong MK, Bero LA How the tobacco industry responded to an influential study of the health effects of secondhand smoke. BMJ 2002;325:1413–6.

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.325.7377.1413 (opens in a new tab)

  54. 54.

    Neuman M, Bitton A, Glantz S Tobacco industry strategies for influencing European Community tobacco advertising legislation. Lancet 2002;359:1323–30.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(02)08275-2 (opens in a new tab)

  55. 55.

    Lee S, Ling PM, Glantz SA The vector of the tobacco epidemic: tobacco industry practices in low and middle-income countries. Cancer Causes Control 2012;23(Suppl 1):117–29.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10552-012-9914-0 (opens in a new tab)

  56. 56.

    Smith KE, Savell E, Gilmore AB What is known about tobacco industry efforts to influence tobacco tax? A systematic review of empirical studies. Tob Control 2013;22:e1

    Not in our library10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050098 (opens in a new tab)

  57. 57.
    How Does the Tobacco Industry Attempt to Influence Marketing Regulations? A Systematic Review · 2014
    No notice
  58. 58.

    Fooks GJ, Smith J, Lee K, et al Controlling corporate influence in health policy making? An assessment of the implementation of article 5.3 of the World Health Organization framework convention on tobacco control. Global Health 2017;13:12

    Not in our library10.1186/s12992-017-0234-8 (opens in a new tab)

  59. 59.

    Gilmore AB, Rowell A, Gallus S, et al Towards a greater understanding of the illicit tobacco trade in Europe: a review of the PMI funded ’Project Star' report. Tob Control 2014;23:e51–61.

    Not in our library10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051240 (opens in a new tab)

  60. 60.

    Joossens L, Gilmore AB, Stoklosa M, et al Assessment of the European Union’s illicit trade agreements with the four major Transnational Tobacco Companies. Tob Control 2016;25:254–60.

    Not in our library10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-052218 (opens in a new tab)

  61. 61.

    Assunta M Tobacco industry’s ITGA fights FCTC implementation in the Uruguay negotiations. Tob Control 2012;21:563–8.

    Not in our library10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050222 (opens in a new tab)

  62. 62.

    Crosbie E, Sosa P, Glantz SA The importance of continued engagement during the implementation phase of tobacco control policies in a middle-income country: the case of Costa Rica. Tob Control 2017;26:60–8.

    Not in our library10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052701 (opens in a new tab)

  63. 63.

    Peeters S, Costa H, Stuckler D, et al The revision of the 2014 European tobacco products directive: an analysis of the tobacco industry’s attempts to ’break the health silo'. Tob Control 2016;25:108–17.

    Not in our library10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051919 (opens in a new tab)

  64. 64.

    Fooks GJ, Gilmore AB Corporate philanthropy, political influence, and health policy. PLoS One 2013;8:e80864

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0080864 (opens in a new tab)

  65. 65.

    Gilmore AB, Fooks G, Drope J, et al Exposing and addressing tobacco industry conduct in low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet 2015;385:1029–43.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60312-9 (opens in a new tab)

  66. 66.

    Crosbie E, Glantz SA Tobacco industry argues domestic trademark laws and international treaties preclude cigarette health warning labels, despite consistent legal advice that the argument is invalid. Tob Control 2014;23:e7

    Not in our library10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050569 (opens in a new tab)

  67. 67.

    Lencucha R Philip Morris versus Uruguay: health governance challenged. Lancet 2010;376:852–3.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(10)61256-1 (opens in a new tab)

  68. 68.

    Fooks G, Gilmore AB International trade law, plain packaging and tobacco industry political activity: the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Tob Control 2014;23:e1

    Not in our library10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050869 (opens in a new tab)

  69. 69.

    Evans-Reeves KA, Hatchard JL, Gilmore AB ’It will harm business and increase illicit trade': an evaluation of the relevance, quality and transparency of evidence submitted by transnational tobacco companies to the UK consultation on standardised packaging 2012. Tob Control 2015;24:e168–77.

    Not in our library10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051930 (opens in a new tab)

  70. 70.

    Ulucanlar S, Fooks GJ, Hatchard JL, et al Representation and misrepresentation of scientific evidence in contemporary tobacco regulation: a review of tobacco industry submissions to the UK Government consultation on standardised packaging. PLoS Med 2014;11:e1001629

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pmed.1001629 (opens in a new tab)

  71. 71.

    World Health Organization. WHO welcomes landmark decision from Australia’s High Court on Tobacco Plain Packaging Act. 2012 http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2012/tobacco_packaging/en/

    Not in our library

  72. 72.

    McCabe Centre for Law & Cancer. Investment tribunal dismisses Philip Morris Asia’s challenge to Australia’s plain packaging. 2015 http://untobaccocontrol.org/kh/legal-challenges/investment-tribunal-dismisses-philip-morris-asias-challenge-australias-plain-packaging/

    Not in our library

  73. 73.

    High Court of Justice. British American Tobacco, Philip Morris International, JT International, Imperial Tobacco v. Secretary of State for Health. Case No: CO/2322/2015, CO/2323/2015, CO/2352/2015, CO/2601/2015, CO/2706/2015. 2016.

    Not in our library

  74. 74.

    Pan American Health Organization, World Health Organization. PAHO/WHO congratulates Uruguay for successfully defending tobacco control policies against tobacco industry challenges. 2016 http://www.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12273%3Apaho-congratulates-uruguay-for-defending-tobacco-control-policies-against-tobacco-industry&Itemid=1926&lang=en

    Not in our library

  75. 75.

    Torjesen I Tobacco giant loses legal action over Uruguay’s tobacco packaging rules. BMJ 2016;354:i3850.

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.i3850 (opens in a new tab)

  76. 76.

    Court of Justice of the European Union. Press release No 48/16. The New EU directive on tobacco products is valid. 2016 https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2016-05/cp160048en.pdf

    Not in our library

  77. 77.

    Liberman J Plainly constitutional: the upholding of plain tobacco packaging by the High Court of Australia. Am J Law Med 2013;39:361–81.

    Not in our library10.1177/009885881303900209 (opens in a new tab)

  78. 78.

    McCabe Centre for Law & Cancer. The High Court of Justice decision upholding the UK’s standardized packaging laws: key points for other jurisdictions. 2016 http://www.mccabecentre.org/blog/uk-decision.html

    Not in our library

  79. 79.

    Piné-Abata H, McNeill A, Murray R, et al A survey of tobacco dependence treatment services in 121 countries. Addiction 2013;108:1476–84.

    Not in our library10.1111/add.12172 (opens in a new tab)

  80. 80.

    Kruse GR, Rigotti NA, Raw M, et al Tobacco dependence treatment training programs: an international survey. Nicotine Tob Res 2016;18:1012–8.

    Not in our library10.1093/ntr/ntv142 (opens in a new tab)

  81. 81.

    Makoka D, Appau A, Lencucha R, et al Farm-level economics of tobacco production in Malawi. 2016 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305379990_Farm-Level_Economics_of_Tobacco_Production_in_Malawi

    Not in our library

  82. 82.

    Magati P, Li Q, Drope J, et al The economics of tobacco farming in Kenya. Nairobi, Atlanta. 2016.

    Not in our library

  83. 83.

    Goma F, Drope J, Zulu R, et al The economics of tobacco farming in Zambia. Lusaka, Atlanta. 2015 https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/economic-and-healthy-policy/economics-tobacco-farming-zambia-presentation-version-december-2015.pdf

    Not in our library

  84. 84.

    Altman DG, Levine DW, Howard G, et al Tobacco farmers and diversification: opportunities and barriers. Tob Control 1996;5:192–8.

    Not in our library10.1136/tc.5.3.192 (opens in a new tab)

  85. 85.

    Warren CW, Erguder T, Lee J, et al Effect of policy changes on cigarette sales: the case of Turkey. Eur J Public Health 2012;22:712–6.

    Not in our library10.1093/eurpub/ckr157 (opens in a new tab)

  86. 86.

    Yürekli A, Önder Z, Erk SF, et al The economics of tobacco and tobacco taxation in Turkey. 2010 http://www.who.int/tobacco/en_tfi_turkey_report_feb2011.pdf

    Not in our library

  87. 87.

    Waters H, Sáenz de Miera B, Ross H, et al The economics of tobacco and tobacco taxation in Mexico. 2010 https://global.tobaccofreekids.org/assets/global/pdfs/en/Mexico_tobacco_taxes_report_en.pdf

    Not in our library

  88. 88.

    Van Walbeek C Tobacco excise taxation in South Africa. 2003 http://www.who.int/tobacco/training/success_stories/en/best_practices_south_africa_taxation.pdf?ua=1

    Not in our library

  89. 89.

    World Health Organization Western Pacific Region, ITC Project. Smoke-free policies in China: evidence of effectiveness and implications for action. 2015 http://itcproject.org/resources/view/2159

    Not in our library

  90. 90.

    Fong GT, Hyland A, Borland R, et al Reductions in tobacco smoke pollution and increases in support for smoke-free public places following the implementation of comprehensive smoke-free workplace legislation in the Republic of Ireland: findings from the ITC Ireland/UK Survey. Tob Control 2006;15(Suppl 3):iii51–iii58.

    Not in our library10.1136/tc.2005.013649 (opens in a new tab)

  91. 91.

    Fong GT, Craig LV, Guignard R, et al Evaluating the effectiveness of France’s indoor smoke-free law 1 year and 5 years after implementation: findings from the ITC France Survey. PLoS One 2013;8:e66692

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0066692 (opens in a new tab)

  92. 92.

    Cooper J, Borland R, Yong HH, et al Compliance and support for bans on smoking in licensed venues in Australia: findings from the International Tobacco Control Four-Country Survey. Aust N Z J Public Health 2010;34:379–85.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1753-6405.2010.00570.x (opens in a new tab)

  93. 93.

    Brennan E, Cameron M, Warne C, et al Secondhand smoke drift: examining the influence of indoor smoking bans on indoor and outdoor air quality at pubs and bars. Nicotine Tob Res 2010;12:271–7.

    Not in our library10.1093/ntr/ntp204 (opens in a new tab)

  94. 94.

    Avila-Tang E, Travers MJ, Navas-Acien A Promoting smoke-free environments in Latin America: a comparison of methods to assess secondhand smoke exposure. Salud Publica Mex 2010;52(Suppl 2):S138–48.

    Not in our library10.1590/s0036-36342010000800009 (opens in a new tab)

  95. 95.

    Connolly GN, Carpenter CM, Travers MJ, et al How smoke-free laws improve air quality: a global study of Irish pubs. Nicotine Tob Res 2009;11:600–5.

    Not in our library10.1093/ntr/ntp038 (opens in a new tab)

  96. 96.

    Hyland A, Travers MJ, Dresler C, et al A 32-country comparison of tobacco smoke derived particle levels in indoor public places. Tob Control 2008;17:159–65.

    Not in our library10.1136/tc.2007.020479 (opens in a new tab)

  97. 97.

    Goodman PG, Haw S, Kabir Z, et al Are there health benefits associated with comprehensive smoke-free laws. Int J Public Health 2009;54:367–78.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00038-009-0089-8 (opens in a new tab)

  98. 98.

    Stallings-Smith S, Zeka A, Goodman P, et al Reductions in cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and respiratory mortality following the national Irish smoking ban: interrupted time-series analysis. PLoS One 2013;8:e62063

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0062063 (opens in a new tab)

  99. 99.

    Sebrié EM, Sandoya E, Hyland A, et al Hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction before and after implementation of a comprehensive smoke-free policy in Uruguay. Tob Control 2013;22:e16–20.

    Not in our library10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050134 (opens in a new tab)

  100. 100.

    Sebrié EM, Sandoya E, Bianco E, et al Hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction before and after implementation of a comprehensive smoke-free policy in Uruguay: experience through 2010. Tob Control 2014;23:471–2.

    Not in our library10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050954 (opens in a new tab)

  101. 101.

    Pell JP, Haw S, Cobbe S, et al Smoke-free legislation and hospitalizations for acute coronary syndrome. N Engl J Med 2008;359:482–91.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmsa0706740 (opens in a new tab)

  102. 102.

    Tan CE, Glantz SA Association between smoke-free legislation and hospitalizations for cardiac, cerebrovascular, and respiratory diseases: a meta-analysis. Circulation 2012;126:2177–83.

    Not in our library10.1161/circulationaha.112.121301 (opens in a new tab)

  103. 103.

    Been JV, Nurmatov U, van Schayck CP, et al The impact of smoke-free legislation on fetal, infant and child health: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol. BMJ Open 2013;3:e002261

    Not in our library10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002261 (opens in a new tab)

  104. 104.

    Fowkes FJ, Stewart MC, Fowkes FG, et al Scottish smoke-free legislation and trends in smoking cessation. Addiction 2008;103:1888–95.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02350.x (opens in a new tab)

  105. 105.

    Gravely S, Fong GT, Driezen P, et al The impact of the 2009/2010 enhancement of cigarette health warning labels in Uruguay: longitudinal findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Uruguay Survey. Tob Control 2016;25:89–95.

    Not in our library10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051742 (opens in a new tab)

  106. 106.

    Hammond D Health warning messages on tobacco products: a review. Tob Control 2011;20:327–37.

    Not in our library10.1136/tc.2010.037630 (opens in a new tab)

  107. 107.

    Hammond D, Fong GT, McDonald PW, et al Impact of the graphic Canadian warning labels on adult smoking behaviour. Tob Control 2003;12:391–5.

    Not in our library10.1136/tc.12.4.391 (opens in a new tab)

  108. 108.

    Hammond D, McDonald PW, Fong GT, et al The impact of cigarette warning labels and smoke-free bylaws on smoking cessation: evidence from former smokers. Can J Public Health 2004;95:201–4.

    Not in our library10.1007/bf03403649 (opens in a new tab)

  109. 109.

    Hammond D, Reid JL, Driezen P, et al Pictorial health warnings on cigarette packs in the United States: an experimental evaluation of the proposed FDA warnings. Nicotine Tob Res 2013;15:93–102.

    Not in our library10.1093/ntr/nts094 (opens in a new tab)

  110. 110.

    Huang J, Chaloupka FJ, Fong GT Cigarette graphic warning labels and smoking prevalence in Canada: a critical examination and reformulation of the FDA regulatory impact analysis. Tob Control 2014;23(Suppl 1):i7–12.

    Not in our library10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051170 (opens in a new tab)

  111. 111.

    Hammond D, Fong GT, McNeill A, et al Effectiveness of cigarette warning labels in informing smokers about the risks of smoking: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Tob Control 2006;15(Suppl 3):iii19–25.

    Not in our library10.1136/tc.2005.012294 (opens in a new tab)

  112. 112.

    Borland R, Wilson N, Fong GT, et al Impact of graphic and text warnings on cigarette packs: findings from four countries over five years. Tob Control 2009;18:358–64.

    Not in our library10.1136/tc.2008.028043 (opens in a new tab)

  113. 113.

    ITC Project. FCTC Article 11 tobacco warning labels: evidence and recommendations from the ITC Project. 2009 http://www.itcproject.org/files/ITC_Tobacco_Labels_Bro_V3.pdf

    Not in our library

  114. 114.

    Fathelrahman AI, Li L, Borland R, et al Stronger pack warnings predict quitting more than weaker ones: finding from the ITC Malaysia and Thailand surveys. Tob Induc Dis 2013;11:20

    Not in our library10.1186/1617-9625-11-20 (opens in a new tab)

  115. 115.

    Chiosi JJ, Andes L, Asma S, et al Warning about the harms of tobacco use in 22 countries: findings from a cross-sectional household survey. Tob Control 2016;25:393–401.

    Not in our library10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-052047 (opens in a new tab)

  116. 116.

    Miller CL, Hill DJ, Quester PG, et al Impact on the Australian quitline of new graphic cigarette pack warnings including the Quitline number. Tob Control 2009;18:235–7.

    Not in our library10.1136/tc.2008.028290 (opens in a new tab)

  117. 117.

    Li J, Grigg M New Zealand: new graphic warnings encourage registrations with the quitline. Tob Control 2009;18:72

    Not in our library10.1136/tc.2008.027649 (opens in a new tab)

  118. 118.

    Wilson N, Li J, Hoek J, et al Long-term benefit of increasing the prominence of a quitline number on cigarette packaging: 3 years of Quitline call data. N Z Med J 2010;123:109–11.

    Not in our library

  119. 119.

    British Heart Foundation, ITC Project. Standardised packaging for tobacco products. 2014 http://www.itcproject.org/files/ITC_British_Heart_FoundationA4-v8-web-Final-18Dec2014.pdf

    Not in our library

  120. 120.

    Hammond D Standardized packaging of tobacco products: evidence review. Prepared on behalf of the Irish Department of Health. 2014 http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2014-Ireland-Plain-Pack-Main-Report-Final-Report-July-26.pdf

    Not in our library

  121. 121.

    Chantler S Standardised packaging of tobacco. Report of the independent review undertaken by Sir Cyril Chantler. 2014 https://www.kcl.ac.uk/health/10035-TSO-2901853-Chantler-Review-ACCESSIBLE.PDF

    Not in our library

  122. 122.

    Moodie C, Stead M, Bauld L, et al Plain tobacco packaging: a systematic review. 2012 http://phrc.lshtm.ac.uk/papers/PHRC_006_Final_Report.pdf

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.f4786 (opens in a new tab)

  123. 123.

    Wakefield M, Coomber K, Zacher M, et al Australian adult smokers' responses to plain packaging with larger graphic health warnings 1 year after implementation: results from a national cross-sectional tracking survey. Tob Control 2015;24:ii17–25.

    Not in our library10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-052050 (opens in a new tab)

  124. 124.

    Yong HH, Borland R, Hammond D, et al Smokers' reactions to the new larger health warning labels on plain cigarette packs in Australia: findings from the ITC Australia project. Tob Control 2016;25:181–7.

    Not in our library10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051979 (opens in a new tab)

  125. 125.

    Dunlop SM, Dobbins T, Young JM, et al Impact of Australia’s introduction of tobacco plain packs on adult smokers' pack-related perceptions and responses: results from a continuous tracking survey. BMJ Open 2014;4:e005836

    Not in our library10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005836 (opens in a new tab)

  126. 126.

    Durkin S, Brennan E, Coomber K, et al Short-term changes in quitting-related cognitions and behaviours after the implementation of plain packaging with larger health warnings: findings from a national cohort study with Australian adult smokers. Tob Control 2015;24:ii26–32.

    Not in our library10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-052058 (opens in a new tab)

  127. 127.

    Young JM, Stacey I, Dobbins TA, et al Association between tobacco plain packaging and Quitline calls: a population-based, interrupted time-series analysis. Med J Aust 2014;200:29–32.

    Not in our library10.5694/mja13.11070 (opens in a new tab)

  128. 128.

    Australian Department of Health. Post-implementation review tobacco plain packaging 2016. 2016 http://ris.pmc.gov.au/2016/02/26/tobacco-plain-packaging/

    Not in our library

  129. 129.

    Kmietowicz Z Australia sees large fall in smoking after introduction of standardised packs. BMJ 2014;349:g4689

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.g4689 (opens in a new tab)

  130. 130.

    ITC Project. ITC Uruguay national report. Findings from the Wave 1 to 4 Surveys (2006-2012). 2014 http://www.itcproject.org/resources/view/1698

    Not in our library

  131. 131.

    ITC Project. ITC Canada national report: findings from the Wave 1 to 8 Surveys (2002- 2011). 2013 http://www.itcproject.org/resources/view/1533.

    Not in our library

  132. 132.

    Caixeta R, Sinha D, Khoury R, et al Adult awareness of tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship--14 countries. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2012;61:365–9.

    Not in our library

  133. 133.

    Harris F, MacKintosh AM, Anderson S, et al Effects of the 2003 advertising/promotion ban in the United Kingdom on awareness of tobacco marketing: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Tob Control 2006;15(Suppl 3):iii26–33.

    Not in our library10.1136/tc.2005.013110 (opens in a new tab)

  134. 134.

    Kasza KA, Hyland AJ, Brown A, et al The effectiveness of tobacco marketing regulations on reducing smokers' exposure to advertising and promotion: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2011;8:321–40.

    Not in our library10.3390/ijerph8020321 (opens in a new tab)

  135. 135.

    Li L, Yong HH, Borland R, et al Reported awareness of tobacco advertising and promotion in China compared to Thailand, Australia and the USA. Tob Control 2009;18:222–7.

    Not in our library10.1136/tc.2008.027037 (opens in a new tab)

  136. 136.

    McNeill A, Lewis S, Quinn C, et al Evaluation of the removal of point-of-sale tobacco displays in Ireland. Tob Control 2011;20:137–43.

    Not in our library10.1136/tc.2010.038141 (opens in a new tab)

  137. 137.

    Saffer H, Chaloupka F The effect of tobacco advertising bans on tobacco consumption. J Health Econ 2000;19:1117–37.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0167-6296(00)00054-0 (opens in a new tab)

  138. 138.

    Blecher E The impact of tobacco advertising bans on consumption in developing countries. J Health Econ 2008;27:930–42.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jhealeco.2008.02.010 (opens in a new tab)

  139. 139.

    Saffer H Tobacco advertising and promotion Tobacco control in developing countries. Oxford: Oxford University, 2000.

    Not in our library

  140. 140.

    National Cancer Institute. The role of the media in promoting and reducing tobacco use: smoking and tobacco control monograph No. 19. NIH Pub. No. 07-6242. 2008 https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/tcrb/monographs/19/m19_complete.pdf

    Not in our library

  141. 141.

    Paynter J, Edwards R The impact of tobacco promotion at the point of sale: a systematic review. Nicotine Tob Res 2009;11:25–35.

    Not in our library10.1093/ntr/ntn002 (opens in a new tab)

  142. 142.

    Spanopoulos D, Britton J, McNeill A, et al Tobacco display and brand communication at the point of sale: implications for adolescent smoking behaviour. Tob Control 2014;23:64–9.

    Not in our library10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050765 (opens in a new tab)

  143. 143.

    Scheffels J, Lavik R Out of sight, out of mind? Removal of point-of-sale tobacco displays in Norway. Tob Control 2013;22:e37–42.

    Not in our library10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050341 (opens in a new tab)

  144. 144.
    Health‐care interventions to promote and assist tobacco cessation: a review of efficacy, effectiveness and affordability for use in national guideline development · 2015
    No notice
  145. 145.

    Carson KV, Verbiest ME, Crone MR, et al Training health professionals in smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012:CD000214

    Not in our library10.1002/14651858.cd000214.pub2 (opens in a new tab)

  146. 146.

    Warren CW, Jones NR, Chauvin J, et al Tobacco use and cessation counselling: cross-country. Data from the Global Health Professions Student Survey (GHPSS), 2005-7. Tob Control 2008;17:238–47.

    Not in our library10.1136/tc.2007.023895 (opens in a new tab)

  147. 147.

    Cooper J, Borland R, Yong HH Australian smokers increasingly use help to quit, but number of attempts remains stable: findings from the International Tobacco Control Study 2002-09. Aust N Z J Public Health 2011;35:368–76.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1753-6405.2011.00733.x (opens in a new tab)

  148. 148.

    Kasza KA, Hyland AJ, Borland R, et al Effectiveness of stop-smoking medications: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Addiction 2013;108:193–202.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.04009.x (opens in a new tab)

  149. 149.

    Ossip-Klein DJ, McIntosh S Quitlines in North America: evidence base and applications. Am J Med Sci 2003;326:201–5.

    Not in our library10.1097/00000441-200310000-00010 (opens in a new tab)

  150. 150.

    Stead LF, Hartmann-Boyce J, Perera R, et al Telephone counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013:CD002850

    Not in our library10.1002/14651858.cd002850.pub3 (opens in a new tab)

  151. 151.

    Anderson CM, Zhu SH Tobacco quitlines: looking back and looking ahead. Tob Control 2007;16(Suppl 1):i81–6.

    Not in our library10.1136/tc.2007.020701 (opens in a new tab)

  152. 152.

    Miller CL, Wakefield M, Roberts L Uptake and effectiveness of the Australian telephone Quitline service in the context of a mass media campaign. Tob Control 2003;12(Suppl 2):53ii–8.

    Not in our library10.1136/tc.12.suppl_2.ii53 (opens in a new tab)

  153. 153.

    Abdullah ASM, Lam T-H, Chan SSC, et al Which smokers use the smoking cessation Quitline in Hong Kong. and how effective is the Quitline? Tob Control 2004;13:415–21.

    Not in our library10.1136/tc.2003.006460 (opens in a new tab)

  154. 154.

    Bauld L, Bell K, McCullough L, et al The effectiveness of NHS smoking cessation services: a systematic review. J Public Health 2010;32:71–82.

    Not in our library10.1093/pubmed/fdp074 (opens in a new tab)

  155. 155.

    Dobbie F, Hiscock R, Leonardi-Bee J, et al Evaluating Long-term Outcomes of NHS Stop Smoking Services (ELONS): a prospective cohort study. Health Technol Assess 2015;19:1–156.

    Not in our library10.3310/hta19950 (opens in a new tab)

  156. 156.

    Mullen KA, Manuel DG, Hawken SJ, et al Effectiveness of a hospital-initiated smoking cessation programme: 2-year health and healthcare outcomes. Tob Control 2017;26:293–9.

    Not in our library10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052728 (opens in a new tab)

  157. 157.

    Gibson JE, Murray RL, Borland R, et al The impact of the United Kingdom’s national smoking cessation strategy on quit attempts and use of cessation services: findings from the International Tobacco Control Four Country Survey. Nicotine Tob Res 2010;12(Suppl):S64–71.

    Not in our library10.1093/ntr/ntq119 (opens in a new tab)

  158. 158.

    Ferguson J, Bauld L, Chesterman J, et al The English smoking treatment services: one-year outcomes. Addiction 2005;100(Suppl 2):59–69.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01028.x (opens in a new tab)

  159. 159.

    Judge K, Bauld L, Chesterman J, et al The English smoking treatment services: short-term outcomes. Addiction 2005;100(Suppl 2):46–58.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01027.x (opens in a new tab)

  160. 160.

    Brose LS, West R, McDermott MS, et al What makes for an effective stop-smoking service? Thorax 2011;66:924–6.

    Not in our library10.1136/thoraxjnl-2011-200251 (opens in a new tab)

  161. 161.

    West R, DiMarino ME, Gitchell J, et al Impact of UK policy initiatives on use of medicines to aid smoking cessation. Tob Control 2005;14:166–71.

    Not in our library10.1136/tc.2004.008649 (opens in a new tab)

  162. 162.

    Bauer UE, Johnson TM, Hopkins RS, et al Changes in youth cigarette use and intentions following implementation of a tobacco control program: findings from the Florida Youth Tobacco Survey, 1998-2000. JAMA 2000;284:723–8.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.284.6.723 (opens in a new tab)

  163. 163.

    Niederdeppe J, Farrelly MC, Haviland ML Confirming "truth": more evidence of a successful tobacco countermarketing campaign in Florida. Am J Public Health 2004;94:255–7.

    Not in our library10.2105/ajph.94.2.255 (opens in a new tab)

  164. 164.

    Weiss JW, Cen S, Schuster DV, et al Longitudinal effects of pro-tobacco and anti-tobacco messages on adolescent smoking susceptibility. Nicotine Tob Res 2006;8:455–65.

    Not in our library10.1080/14622200600670454 (opens in a new tab)

  165. 165.

    Brinn MP, Carson KV, Esterman AJ, et al Mass media interventions for preventing smoking in young people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010:CD001006

    Not in our library10.1002/14651858.cd001006.pub2 (opens in a new tab)

  166. 166.

    Flynn BS, Worden JK, Secker-Walker RH, et al Mass media and school interventions for cigarette smoking prevention: effects 2 years after completion. Am J Public Health 1994;84:1148–50.

    Not in our library10.2105/ajph.84.7.1148 (opens in a new tab)

  167. 167.

    Farrelly MC, Davis KC, Haviland ML, et al Evidence of a dose-response relationship between "truth" antismoking ads and youth smoking prevalence. Am J Public Health 2005;95:425–31.

    Not in our library10.2105/ajph.2004.049692 (opens in a new tab)

  168. 168.

    Wakefield M, Chaloupka F Effectiveness of comprehensive tobacco control programmes in reducing teenage smoking in the USA. Tob Control 2000;9:177–86.

    Not in our library10.1136/tc.9.2.177 (opens in a new tab)

  169. 169.

    Goldman LK, Glantz SA Evaluation of antismoking advertising campaigns. JAMA 1998;279:772–7.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.279.10.772 (opens in a new tab)

  170. 170.

    Siegel M, Biener L The impact of an antismoking media campaign on progression to established smoking: results of a longitudinal youth study. Am J Public Health 2000;90:380–6.

    Not in our library10.2105/ajph.90.3.380 (opens in a new tab)

  171. 171.

    Emery S, Wakefield MA, Terry-McElrath Y, et al Televised state-sponsored antitobacco advertising and youth smoking beliefs and behavior in the United States, 1999-2000. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2005;159:639

    Not in our library10.1001/archpedi.159.7.639 (opens in a new tab)

  172. 172.

    Sly DF, Heald GR, Ray S The Florida "truth" anti-tobacco media evaluation: design, first year results, and implications for planning future state media evaluations. Tob Control 2001;10:9–15.

    Not in our library10.1136/tc.10.1.9 (opens in a new tab)

  173. 173.

    Farrelly MC, Healton CG, Davis KC, et al Getting to the truth: evaluating national tobacco countermarketing campaigns. Am J Public Health 2002;92:901–7.

    Not in our library10.2105/ajph.92.6.901 (opens in a new tab)

  174. 174.

    Popham WJ, Potter LD, Bal DG, et al Do anti-smoking media campaigns help smokers quit? Public Health Rep 1993;108:510–3.

    Not in our library

  175. 175.

    White V, Tan N, Wakefield M, et al Do adult focused anti-smoking campaigns have an impact on adolescents? The case of the Australian National Tobacco Campaign. Tob Control 2003;12(Suppl 2):23ii–9.

    Not in our library10.1136/tc.12.suppl_2.ii23 (opens in a new tab)

  176. 176.

    Huang P, Alo C, Satterwhite D, et al Usual sources of cigarettes for middle and high school students--Texas, 1998-1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2002;51:900–1.

    Not in our library

  177. 177.

    Levinson AH, Mickiewicz T Reducing underage cigarette sales in an isolated community: the effect on adolescent cigarette supplies. Prev Med 2007;45:447–53.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.07.034 (opens in a new tab)

  178. 178.

    Tutt D, Bauer L, Difranza J Restricting the retail supply of tobacco to minors. J Public Health Policy 2009;30:68–82.

    Not in our library10.1057/jphp.2008.44 (opens in a new tab)

  179. 179.

    Verdonk-Kleinjan WM, Knibbe RA, Bieleman B, et al The tobacco sales ban and tobacco purchases by adolescents: a general population study in The Netherlands. Eur J Public Health 2008;18:498–503.

    Not in our library10.1093/eurpub/ckn054 (opens in a new tab)

  180. 180.

    Jason LA, Ji PY, Anes MD, et al Active enforcement of cigarette control laws in the prevention of cigarette sales to minors. JAMA 1991;266:3159–61.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.1991.03470220075030 (opens in a new tab)

  181. 181.

    DiFranza JR, Carlson RP, Caisse RE Reducing youth access to tobacco. Tob Control 1992;1:58

    Not in our library10.1136/tc.1.1.58a (opens in a new tab)

  182. 182.

    Staff M, March L, Brnabic A, et al Can non-prosecutory enforcement of public health legislation reduce smoking among high school students? Aust N Z J Public Health 1998;22:332–5.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1467-842x.1998.tb01387.x (opens in a new tab)

  183. 183.

    Gendall P, Hoek J, Marsh L, et al Youth tobacco access: trends and policy implications. BMJ Open 2014;4:e004631

    Not in our library10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004631 (opens in a new tab)

  184. 184.

    Friend K, Carmona M, Wilbur P, et al Youths' social sources of cigarettes: the limits of youth-access policies. Contemp Drug Probl 2001;28:507–26.

    Not in our library10.1177/009145090102800309 (opens in a new tab)

  185. 185.

    Lantz PM, Jacobson PD, Warner KE, et al Investing in youth tobacco control: a review of smoking prevention and control strategies. Tob Control 2000;9:47–63.

    Not in our library10.1136/tc.9.1.47 (opens in a new tab)

  186. 186.

    HM Revenue & Customs, Border Force. Tackling illicit tobacco: From leaf to light. 2015 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/418732/Tackling_illicit_tobacco_-_From_leaf_to_light__2015_.pdf

    Not in our library

  187. 187.

    Joossens L, Raw M How can cigarette smuggling be reduced? BMJ 2000;321:947–50.

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.321.7266.947 (opens in a new tab)

  188. 188.

    Joossens L Report on smuggling control in Spain. 2003 http://www.who.int/tobacco/training/en/bestpracticesreportonsmugglingcontrolspain.pdf

    Not in our library

  189. 189.

    Akhter F, Buckles D, Tito R Breaking the dependency on tobacco production: transition strategies for Bangladesh: Leppan W, Lecours N, Buckles D, Tobacco control and tobacco farming: separating myth from reality. London: Anthem Press, 2014:141–88.

    Not in our library

  190. 190.

    Li VC, Wang Q, Xia N, et al Tobacco crop substitution: pilot effort in China. Am J Public Health 2012;102:1660–3.

    Not in our library10.2105/ajph.2012.300733 (opens in a new tab)

  191. 191.

    Kibwage J, Netondo G, Odondo A, et al Diversification of household livelihood strategies for tobacco small-holder farmers: a case study of introducing bamboo in South Nyanza region, Kenya. 2014 http://www.tobaccotobamboo.org/Publications/ProjectProgressReports/TOBACCO-TO-BAMBOOFINALPROJECTTECHNICALREPORT-103765-001.pdf

    Not in our library

  192. 192.

    Kenya Tobacco Control Research Group. Bamboo as alternative crop and livelihood to smallholder tobacco farming research project. 2011 http://www.tobaccotobamboo.org/index.php

    Not in our library

  193. 193.

    Magati P, Kibwage J, Omondi S, et al A cost-benefit analysis of substituting bamboo for tobacco: a case study of smallholder tobacco farmers in South Nyanza, Kenya. Sci J Agric Res Manag 2012;2012:1–8.

    Not in our library

  194. 194.

    Keyser JC The costs and profitability of tobacco compared to other crops in Zimbabwe. 2002 http://siteresources.worldbank.org/HEALTHNUTRITIONANDPOPULATION/Resources/281627-1095698140167/Keyser-TheCostsandProfitability-whole.pdf

    Not in our library

  195. 195.

    Keyser J, Lungu V Malawi agricultural comparative advantage. 1997.

    Not in our library

  196. 196.

    Molla U Economics of producing multiple rabi crops International workshop on impact of tobacco cultivation and policy advocacy for shifting to food and other agricultural crops. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Dhaka University, 2011.

    Not in our library

  197. 197.

    Vargas M, Campos R Crop substitution and diversification strategies: empirical evidence from selected Brazilian municipalities. Economics of tobacco control paper no. 28. 2005 http://siteresources.worldbank.org/HEALTHNUTRITIONANDPOPULATION/Resources/281627-1095698140167/VargasCropSubstitutionFinal.pdf

    Not in our library

  198. 198.

    Ballard T, Ehlers J, Freund E, et al Green tobacco sickness: occupational nicotine poisoning in tobacco workers. Arch Environ Health 1995;50:384–9.

    Not in our library10.1080/00039896.1995.9935972 (opens in a new tab)

  199. 199.

    Hipke ME Green tobacco sickness. South Med J 1993;86:989–92.

    Not in our library10.1097/00007611-199309000-00002 (opens in a new tab)

  200. 200.

    Gehlbach SH, Williams WA, Freeman JI Protective clothing as a means of reducing nicotine absorption in tobacco harvesters. Arch Environ Health 1979;34:111–4.

    Not in our library10.1080/00039896.1979.10667379 (opens in a new tab)

  201. 201.

    Ghosh SK, Gokani VN, Parikh JR, et al Protection against "green symptoms" from tobacco in Indian harvesters: a preliminary intervention study. Arch Environ Health 1987;42:121–4.

    Not in our library10.1080/00039896.1987.9935807 (opens in a new tab)

  202. 202.

    Ghosh SK, Gokani VN, Doctor PB, et al Intervention studies against "green symptoms" among Indian tobacco harvesters. Arch Environ Health 1991;46:316–7.

    Not in our library10.1080/00039896.1991.9934396 (opens in a new tab)

  203. 203.

    Arcury TA, Quandt SA, Garcia DI, et al A clinic-based, case-control comparison of green tobacco sickness among minority farmworkers: clues for prevention. South Med J 2002;95:1008–11.

    Not in our library10.1097/00007611-200295090-00011 (opens in a new tab)

  204. 204.

    Onuki M, Yokoyama K, Kimura K, et al Assessment of urinary cotinine as a marker of nicotine absorption from tobacco leaves: a study on tobacco farmers in Malaysia. J Occup Health 2003;45:140–5.

    Not in our library10.1539/joh.45.140 (opens in a new tab)

  205. 205.

    McCabe Centre for Law and Cancer, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Report on WHO FCTC in legislation and litigation. 2015 http://www.who.int/fctc/cop/FCTC-in-Legislation-and-Litigation-McCabe-Centre_TFK.pdf?ua=1.

    Not in our library

  206. 206.

    Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Decision FCTC/COP7(13) measures to strengthen implementation of the convention through coordination and cooperation. 2016 http://www.who.int/fctc/cop/cop7/FCTC_COP7(13)_EN.pdf?ua=1

    Not in our library

  207. 207.

    Assunta M Good country practices in the implementation of WHO FCTC Article 5.3 and its guidelines. Report commissioned by the Convention Secretariat. 2018 http://www.who.int/fctc/publications/fctc-article-5-3-best-practices.pdf

    Not in our library

  208. 208.

    Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control (GGTC). Policies and practices that protect against tobacco industry interference: a handbook on the implementation of Article 5.3 of the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) and related actions. 2018 https://seatca.org/dmdocuments/PoliciesandPracticesProtectagainstTII.pdf

    Not in our library

  209. 209.

    Feliu A, Filippidis FT, Joossens L, et al Impact of tobacco control policies on smoking prevalence and quit ratios in 27 European Union countries from 2006 to 2014. Tob Control 2019;28:101–9.

    Not in our library10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-054119 (opens in a new tab)

  210. 210.

    Nilan K, Raw M, McKeever TM, et al Progress in implementation of WHO FCTC Article 14 and its guidelines: a survey of tobacco dependence treatment provision in 142 countries. Addiction 2017;112:2023–31.

    Not in our library10.1111/add.13903 (opens in a new tab)

  211. 211.

    Kuipers MA, Brandhof SD, Monshouwer K, et al Impact of laws restricting the sale of tobacco to minors on adolescent smoking and perceived obtainability of cigarettes: an intervention-control pre-post study of 19 European Union countries. Addiction 2017;112:320–9.

    Not in our library10.1111/add.13605 (opens in a new tab)

  212. 212.
    Effect of tobacco control policies on perinatal and child health: a systematic review and meta-analysis · 2017
    No notice
  213. 213.

    Bala MM, Strzeszynski L, Topor-Madry R Mass media interventions for smoking cessation in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;11:CD004704

    Not in our library10.1002/14651858.cd004704.pub4 (opens in a new tab)

  214. 214.

    Noar SM, Francis DB, Bridges C, et al The impact of strengthening cigarette pack warnings: systematic review of longitudinal observational studies. Soc Sci Med 2016;164:118–29.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.06.011 (opens in a new tab)

  215. 215.

    Monson E, Arsenault N Effects of enactment of legislative (public) smoking bans on voluntary home smoking restrictions: a review. Nicotine Tob Res 2017;19:141–8.

    Not in our library10.1093/ntr/ntw171 (opens in a new tab)

  216. 216.

    Allen LN, Pullar J, Wickramasinghe KK, et al Evaluation of research on interventions aligned to WHO ’Best Buys' for NCDs in low-income and lower-middle-income countries: a systematic review from 1990 to 2015. BMJ Glob Health 2018;3:e000535

    Not in our library10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000535 (opens in a new tab)

Cited by papers we hold 7

Questions about this paper

We email you if it is retracted, withdrawn, corrected or flagged.

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.